CDZ Climate Denial or Climate Dishonesty?

Really? How many St. Louis homes have been heated with coal in the last 50-60 years? The switch to oil burning furnaces or natural gas or electricity occurred long before climate change became an issue. And even the pro-AGW climate scientists agree that the change in the USA came more from market forces than anything the government has done.

Most of the world's electricity generation is via coal at about 40%. The rest is mostly from oil, natural gas, nuclear, and hydro with wind and solar still at the bottom at less than 1% worldwide. The USA now uses slightly more natural gas than coal for electricity generation but in both cases the percentage is in the low 30 percentile.

Few if any homes are heated with coal in St Louis any longer. The one I live in was heated with fuel oil 15 years ago. Even that was unbelievably dirty by modern standards.

To my point on heating with coal. The story of the trouble making people switch to cleaner coal in the 1930's is an example of something ridiculously easy and obvious the government had to make people do at the risk of riots.

Back to your point, market forces are slowly killing coal in America independent of government regulations I agree. Emissions regulations do not help coal but whatever nostalgia people have for wanting to go back to well off Coal miners were in Butcher's Hollow in the 1930's is misplaced.

What can we debate....I don't want to just plum shut down every coal plant in America. I'm also not enough of an expert to really engage in a conversation about coal plant emissions controls. In general I find electricity humorously cheap and if anyone asked me to vote yes on a bill which would add 5% to the cost of producing energy with coal by means of emissions control additions I would.

Try living on a small fixed income and see how you feel about adding 5% to that electric bill, most especially if it is for reasons that benefit pretty much nobody. Certainly where natural gas is cheaper, electric plants will use natural gas.

But if the USA cannot use all the coal produced, there are many other countries that need it.

It is nice of you to be so concerned about the poor. There is a socialized healthcare thread someplace I'll link ya to where you can support someone's drive for subsidies for insurance for the poor.

I would counter even if 100% of your electricity comes from coal $20 a month in mid winter and mid summer being added on is not the big deal. It is what is wrong with their situation.

I'm not sure what you are getting at with coal production...if Chad can produce coal and use it bless them. Sneak them the designes for the most cost effective / cleanest plant they can build.....and build them a railroad to feed it with I suppose. I don't hate the poor. I just don't think really poor countries have the infrastructure needed to support coal plants.

The USA hasn't always had the infrastructure to support much of anything either, but by exploiting our own natural resources we became the No. 1 economic power of the world with one of the highest standards of living.

Evenso states such as Hawaii have no natural power sources except for a small amount of thermal, wind, and solar, so they have to import the coal and petroleum they use as their primary source of energy. Their electric costs are therefore the highest in the country, but they have electricity. Alaska does fine because, though they have about half the nation's coal reserves, oil and natural gas are also abundant there and provide over 95% of their energy needs. And our extensive power grid takes care of all the rest of us in the contiguous 48.

Poor countries should be encouraged to adopt personal liberty, free markets, and respect human rights so that they too can prosper.

And that is why we need to be sure this whole combat climate change stuff is honest and useful because it could deny poor countries the ability to prosper as those pushing that program already have.

Perhaps if we can get rid of the rhetoric of the yellers on both sides we can find agreement.

Pretty much I don't mind holding the U.S. to a higher standard than the rest of the world. I don't want my city's air to become as dirty as Beijing's just to lower my electric bills. From history I firmly believe it would if we remove regulations.

Also, we can afford it. If anyone in Chad can build a Coal power plant and the infrastructure needed to support it, bless them! If the Paris accords or my own accords provide a tax break to U.S. companies who sell at cost or give them equipment which met our standards of 30 years ago, great.

Cheaply selling or giving away even our obsolete technology will make 3rd world countries more capable of competing first with manufacturing then militarily but if we don't, eventually the Chinese or the French will and I'd like to think we would get some return on the good will.

I am all for good will and I definitely believe in giving stuff away that we don't need and somebody else can get some good and beneficial use out of.

But this isn't really about charity. It is a about allowing people who are determined to improve their own circumstances the liberty/ability to use the resources they have to do that.

If an Indian reservation for example, decided to build a coal plant and exploit its own coal reserves to empower or improve the status of its own people, I sure wouldn't want UNNECESSARY law/rules/regs to prevent them from doing that.
 
Few if any homes are heated with coal in St Louis any longer. The one I live in was heated with fuel oil 15 years ago. Even that was unbelievably dirty by modern standards.

To my point on heating with coal. The story of the trouble making people switch to cleaner coal in the 1930's is an example of something ridiculously easy and obvious the government had to make people do at the risk of riots.

Back to your point, market forces are slowly killing coal in America independent of government regulations I agree. Emissions regulations do not help coal but whatever nostalgia people have for wanting to go back to well off Coal miners were in Butcher's Hollow in the 1930's is misplaced.

What can we debate....I don't want to just plum shut down every coal plant in America. I'm also not enough of an expert to really engage in a conversation about coal plant emissions controls. In general I find electricity humorously cheap and if anyone asked me to vote yes on a bill which would add 5% to the cost of producing energy with coal by means of emissions control additions I would.

Try living on a small fixed income and see how you feel about adding 5% to that electric bill, most especially if it is for reasons that benefit pretty much nobody. Certainly where natural gas is cheaper, electric plants will use natural gas.

But if the USA cannot use all the coal produced, there are many other countries that need it.

It is nice of you to be so concerned about the poor. There is a socialized healthcare thread someplace I'll link ya to where you can support someone's drive for subsidies for insurance for the poor.

I would counter even if 100% of your electricity comes from coal $20 a month in mid winter and mid summer being added on is not the big deal. It is what is wrong with their situation.

I'm not sure what you are getting at with coal production...if Chad can produce coal and use it bless them. Sneak them the designes for the most cost effective / cleanest plant they can build.....and build them a railroad to feed it with I suppose. I don't hate the poor. I just don't think really poor countries have the infrastructure needed to support coal plants.

The USA hasn't always had the infrastructure to support much of anything either, but by exploiting our own natural resources we became the No. 1 economic power of the world with one of the highest standards of living.

Evenso states such as Hawaii have no natural power sources except for a small amount of thermal, wind, and solar, so they have to import the coal and petroleum they use as their primary source of energy. Their electric costs are therefore the highest in the country, but they have electricity. Alaska does fine because, though they have about half the nation's coal reserves, oil and natural gas are also abundant there and provide over 95% of their energy needs. And our extensive power grid takes care of all the rest of us in the contiguous 48.

Poor countries should be encouraged to adopt personal liberty, free markets, and respect human rights so that they too can prosper.

And that is why we need to be sure this whole combat climate change stuff is honest and useful because it could deny poor countries the ability to prosper as those pushing that program already have.

Perhaps if we can get rid of the rhetoric of the yellers on both sides we can find agreement.

Pretty much I don't mind holding the U.S. to a higher standard than the rest of the world. I don't want my city's air to become as dirty as Beijing's just to lower my electric bills. From history I firmly believe it would if we remove regulations.

Also, we can afford it. If anyone in Chad can build a Coal power plant and the infrastructure needed to support it, bless them! If the Paris accords or my own accords provide a tax break to U.S. companies who sell at cost or give them equipment which met our standards of 30 years ago, great.

Cheaply selling or giving away even our obsolete technology will make 3rd world countries more capable of competing first with manufacturing then militarily but if we don't, eventually the Chinese or the French will and I'd like to think we would get some return on the good will.

I am all for good will and I definitely believe in giving stuff away that we don't need and somebody else can get some good and beneficial use out of.

But this isn't really about charity. It is a about allowing people who are determined to improve their own circumstances the ability to use the resources they have to do that.

We just WANT to disagree because of talk shows and the message board.

I think we are in agreement. I want everyone in Chad to have electricity.

Maybe our disagreement can be in what percentage of a tax break to give companies who funnel slightly obsolete "1990's" technology to them to help generate reasonably clean electric and not have to learn like we did.
 
Try living on a small fixed income and see how you feel about adding 5% to that electric bill, most especially if it is for reasons that benefit pretty much nobody. Certainly where natural gas is cheaper, electric plants will use natural gas.

But if the USA cannot use all the coal produced, there are many other countries that need it.

It is nice of you to be so concerned about the poor. There is a socialized healthcare thread someplace I'll link ya to where you can support someone's drive for subsidies for insurance for the poor.

I would counter even if 100% of your electricity comes from coal $20 a month in mid winter and mid summer being added on is not the big deal. It is what is wrong with their situation.

I'm not sure what you are getting at with coal production...if Chad can produce coal and use it bless them. Sneak them the designes for the most cost effective / cleanest plant they can build.....and build them a railroad to feed it with I suppose. I don't hate the poor. I just don't think really poor countries have the infrastructure needed to support coal plants.

The USA hasn't always had the infrastructure to support much of anything either, but by exploiting our own natural resources we became the No. 1 economic power of the world with one of the highest standards of living.

Evenso states such as Hawaii have no natural power sources except for a small amount of thermal, wind, and solar, so they have to import the coal and petroleum they use as their primary source of energy. Their electric costs are therefore the highest in the country, but they have electricity. Alaska does fine because, though they have about half the nation's coal reserves, oil and natural gas are also abundant there and provide over 95% of their energy needs. And our extensive power grid takes care of all the rest of us in the contiguous 48.

Poor countries should be encouraged to adopt personal liberty, free markets, and respect human rights so that they too can prosper.

And that is why we need to be sure this whole combat climate change stuff is honest and useful because it could deny poor countries the ability to prosper as those pushing that program already have.

Perhaps if we can get rid of the rhetoric of the yellers on both sides we can find agreement.

Pretty much I don't mind holding the U.S. to a higher standard than the rest of the world. I don't want my city's air to become as dirty as Beijing's just to lower my electric bills. From history I firmly believe it would if we remove regulations.

Also, we can afford it. If anyone in Chad can build a Coal power plant and the infrastructure needed to support it, bless them! If the Paris accords or my own accords provide a tax break to U.S. companies who sell at cost or give them equipment which met our standards of 30 years ago, great.

Cheaply selling or giving away even our obsolete technology will make 3rd world countries more capable of competing first with manufacturing then militarily but if we don't, eventually the Chinese or the French will and I'd like to think we would get some return on the good will.

I am all for good will and I definitely believe in giving stuff away that we don't need and somebody else can get some good and beneficial use out of.

But this isn't really about charity. It is a about allowing people who are determined to improve their own circumstances the ability to use the resources they have to do that.

We just WANT to disagree because of talk shows and the message board.

I think we are in agreement. I want everyone in Chad to have electricity.

Maybe our disagreement can be in what percentage of a tax break to give companies who funnel slightly obsolete "1990's" technology to them to help generate reasonably clean electric and not have to learn like we did.

A tax break so that U.S. companies could provide affordable technology to underdeveloped countries would certainly be a form of foreign aid I could support.

But the more important thing is allow countries to exploit and/or utilize resources so that their people become prosperous and not worry so much about exactly how they do that. People who lack adequate food, potable water, shelter or are insecure about ability to obtain basic necessities or minimal wants don't generally give a damn about the environment or much of anything else other than their own survival and that of those they love. Just providing electricity won't change that fact much.

But if electricity or other modern power sources gave the people ability to work their way out of poverty and into prosperity, it is pretty much a given that the people would then have the power and incentive to demand clean air, clean water, clean soil, and aesthetic beauty.

Such has been the case with civilization everywhere it has become prosperous.
 
Check out the projected days over 104 degrees after 2020 and compare them with the actual days over 104 degrees from 1960 to the present:



June 21, 2017 3:05 PM
Sick of Sacramento days above 104°? Scientists say your kids will see a lot more of them
By Phillip Reese

[email protected]


Sacramento likely will see its fifth straight day of temperatures above 104 degrees on Thursday, an unusually intense heat wave.

Such heat waves will be the norm if greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise over the rest of the century, according to projections by the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego.

Sacramento saw an average of four days each year when temperatures exceeded 104 degrees between 1960 and 2000.

Sacramento will see an average of 40 days each year with temperatures above 104 degrees between 2070 and 2100 if emissions continue to rise strongly through 2050 and plateau around 2100, according to the UC San Diego projections. For comparison, Tucson, AZ, saw about 30 days that hot last year.

That model predicts that Sacramento will begin to see several days with temperatures above 104 degrees in May and October as soon as the next decade.

A more hopeful scenario assumes the state will cut back emissions so they peak around 2040, then begin to decline. It provides a slightly rosier picture: 28 Sacramento days per year with temperatures over 104 degrees by 2100, with extreme heat in May and October beginning around 2040.

This chart shows the projected number of 100 degree days in Sacramento under the two scenarios. It uses the second generation Canadian Earth System Model, a widely-disseminated climate model developed by the Canadian government.


Data Tracker is a regular feature that breaks down the numbers behind today’s news. Explore more trends at sacbee.com/datatracker.

Phillip Reese: 916-321-1137, @PhillipHReese


Notice anything interesting? While the actual number of days over 104 degrees has remained constant over the past six decades, the projected number of days over 104 degrees for the next six decades is up to 10 times greater! How is it that all of the emissions of the last 60 years has had no effect on the number of these days, but the effects of emissions during the next 60 years will have an astronomical effect?

The answer is that this ludicrous claim is based on a concocted "model" which is completely devoid of empirical data. In our society, fake science is every bit as prevalent as fake news.

Part of this is just statistical distributions. 104DegF is at the FAR end of a distribution that is NOT plain Normal or Gauss. It's more like the long tail on a Rayleigh Distribution.

So the historical frequency of 104DegF days IS probably 4 or 5 times SMALLER than 102degF days.
When you promote the ENTIRE DISTRIBUTION by a mere couple degrees Fahr -- it IS probably a much higher number.

What all this misses is -- there's really not MUCH critical biological impact difference between 102degF and 104degF days. Because NOW -- all the earlier predictions of 10 or 12 degF higher by 2100 have been pulled back into much smaller predictions.
 
Really? How many St. Louis homes have been heated with coal in the last 50-60 years? The switch to oil burning furnaces or natural gas or electricity occurred long before climate change became an issue. And even the pro-AGW climate scientists agree that the change in the USA came more from market forces than anything the government has done.

Most of the world's electricity generation is via coal at about 40%. The rest is mostly from oil, natural gas, nuclear, and hydro with wind and solar still at the bottom at less than 1% worldwide. The USA now uses slightly more natural gas than coal for electricity generation but in both cases the percentage is in the low 30 percentile.

Few if any homes are heated with coal in St Louis any longer. The one I live in was heated with fuel oil 15 years ago. Even that was unbelievably dirty by modern standards.

To my point on heating with coal. The story of the trouble making people switch to cleaner coal in the 1930's is an example of something ridiculously easy and obvious the government had to make people do at the risk of riots.

Back to your point, market forces are slowly killing coal in America independent of government regulations I agree. Emissions regulations do not help coal but whatever nostalgia people have for wanting to go back to well off Coal miners were in Butcher's Hollow in the 1930's is misplaced.

What can we debate....I don't want to just plum shut down every coal plant in America. I'm also not enough of an expert to really engage in a conversation about coal plant emissions controls. In general I find electricity humorously cheap and if anyone asked me to vote yes on a bill which would add 5% to the cost of producing energy with coal by means of emissions control additions I would.

Try living on a small fixed income and see how you feel about adding 5% to that electric bill, most especially if it is for reasons that benefit pretty much nobody. Certainly where natural gas is cheaper, electric plants will use natural gas.

But if the USA cannot use all the coal produced, there are many other countries that need it.

It is nice of you to be so concerned about the poor. There is a socialized healthcare thread someplace I'll link ya to where you can support someone's drive for subsidies for insurance for the poor.

I would counter even if 100% of your electricity comes from coal $20 a month in mid winter and mid summer being added on is not the big deal. It is what is wrong with their situation.

I'm not sure what you are getting at with coal production...if Chad can produce coal and use it bless them. Sneak them the designes for the most cost effective / cleanest plant they can build.....and build them a railroad to feed it with I suppose. I don't hate the poor. I just don't think really poor countries have the infrastructure needed to support coal plants.
I find your last statement rather interesting. The reality is that the really poor countries only have the infrastructure and ability to use coal or other fossil fuel sources. Green energy is not cheap to set up. That is one of the problems with AGW 'solutions' - they do noting to address the majority of the problem that they are claiming exists.

Green energy will eventually take over traditional fossil fuel sources of energy - it is abundant and everywhere. At this point in time it just is not ready to do such.

Our positions are probably pretty close. If anyone in Chad can figure out how to lay a railroad and feed a coal plant more power to them. If we can feed them some technology so the plant is somewhat more efficient all the better. It helps their people down wind as well as ours.

In some ways renewables seem easier to set up.

My neighbor has a detached garage 20 feet from his house. Instead of getting it wired right to support a trickle charger he bought a solar powered one about a decade ago. I guess if we didn't have building codes wiring it would be something even I can do...not sure you all want that in a real neighborhood though because the people worse than me would be wiring things.

The same holds true in the third world. If I we moved in together into a city with no real electricity it would be easier to import some solar panels and set up a windmill and see if we could power a fridge and recharge our satellite phones.

To power a whole city I wonder. You would think economy of scale would favor the coal plant. They are cheap and steady.

Google fails me. What cities have had this kind of electrical service improvements since Y2K?
And that really is the point there - in scale coal is far easier. If we were talking about single households then yes, I think you are likely correct that renewables would be far easier to set up. The complexity to set up a coal fired plant in my basement makes it impossible :D In these third world nations though there are little to no people that can afford the costs of solar panels to meet any power needs. Rather, collectively they do have the economic ability to set up a coal plant for the city.
 

Forum List

Back
Top